[QUOTE=Spider-Who?;20831609]Oh, no, I did. It's just easy for you to say I didn't to suit your needs. From what I recall from it the other day, the whole article is damning the "strong" portrayal of women because it is "unrealistic", and that its better to have a realistic (ie: flawed) character. As I mentioned, I have no disagreement with this because flawed characters are what we as an audience connect with. They are far more interesting than cookie cutter examples of perfect creatures.

So we agree about well written characters. OK...?

The reason it seemed you didn't understand is because your response was this:

Now you're saying that the sexism is evidenced by not having a "weak" character? Yes, it is film class 101 to know that your main character having flaws greatly improves the audiences ability to relate. That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role. How many male characters suffer the same issue, where they are perfect, physically strong, charming and a "man's" man? Where are the same people from your article crying foul there? If I recall, Megan Fox's character is flawed (as your link requests) - she comes from a bad home, whose father is in and out of jail, and this fact comes back to bite her in the ass. Her character portrayal might not be the best, but she is meant to be anything but a weak character.

Because all of this is from bias. None of the highlighted area is derived from the article. That's why it seemed you didn't understand it. Not because it "suited my needs". Nice try with the cute reversal though.

It never claims that men are pigs with the inability to write a female character. Some male writers that have written effective, compelling female characters:

Daniel Clowes
Sean Mckeever
Chris Ware

The main point that the article goes over how being super hot but performing or having a masculine trait does not a strong female character make. Which is something you stated Megan Fox's character to be.

Its sad you can't comprehend sarcasm when that's all you're capable of dishing out.

Yes, a "sarcastic" comment without any form or context which happens to directly support the statement you made about the article But props for the (attempted) insult and trying to back-pedal.

What you said: "That link you posted is nothing new, and in fact, I would go so far as to say THAT is sexist, since it deals so heavily in the idea that men are pigs who only right the "perfect" women and are mentally incapable of writing a nuanced role.

a sentence brimming with sarcasm if ever I saw one.

Status quo or not, the way people - man and female - are portrayed it the media is unhealthy, which is the point you are clearly missing.

What a simple way to just dismiss my statement, avoid the actual argument then follow it by bringing in a point that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Yes, it's been clear for decades that neither sex is represented "healthily" or realistically in television shows and movies (This is not the issue), but it's clear that for the majority (not all) of them, women end up getting the raw end of the deal.

Good for you. Still, failing the Bechdel test hardly qualifies as an example of sexism. Bad, weak writing? Sure. Automatic sexism? Not automatically. I guess romantic comedies are totally sexist.

Many of them are. But again, not in the most obvious ways. Off the top of my head, "the Ugly Truth" and "Pretty woman" are two seemingly harmless romantic comedies chock full of sexism and misogyny.

It doesn't make a movie outright sexist by failing the Bechdel test, but relating to my last comment, it is indicative of an underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in cinema.

Really? I'm sure any psychiatrist and woman with emotional problems like this would strongly disagree with you. If you were to say that this wasn't handled well, or used to its fullest potential, I would certainly agree with you however.

Having a father in prison is valid "problem" in real life or a story to be sure. But it is not a "character flaw". If anything, in the Transformers movie it is used as a plot device.

Bruce Wayne's parents for example, being killed is not a character flaw. Bruce (in Begins) being a a stubborn, headstrong, vengeful youth...those are character flaws.

Being an over confident know-it-all, being an eager overachiever, being neurotic or emotionally repressed are all legitimate character flaws.

"Picking the wrong types of guys" is hardly a flaw.

Did you read MY posts? Obviously not because not only did I say that the character was poorly written, I've also be agreeing with you concerning the unnecessary ass shots. But again, my point has been:

Was Megan Fox's character poorly written? Absolutely. So was every other character in these movies. I can certainly agree that the hype they tried to generate throughout the movie concerning the sex appeal is unneeded and unnecessary (and I can see where others like yourself might want to label it as sexist); I personally do not come to that particular conclusion.

"Visual appeal" is not inherently sexist. That's right. The way you word it when you say "visual appeal is not inherently sexist", indicates that someone has argued that "Visual appeal IS sexist" (which I haven't). That's such a sweeping, general statement that, from the nature of this conversation, we can assume means the visual appeal of the female form. But again, this was never the issue. The issue is the execution and portrayal of the female form within the narrative, which is arguably sexist and misogynistic.

A story of fiction whether it is told well or poorly may contain sexist and misogynistic elements. So no, weak writing is not inherently sexist (this was also not an issue).

Good, you understand humor.

I will in no way disagree with the point that the movie should have focused on the Transformers. That is something EVERYONE can agree on. You're jumping to conclusions to think otherwise. My point here is that with the story Bay is choosing to tell, his inclusion of the military makes sense and how he does so is not (in my eyes) examples of jingoism.

Again, this has to do with the execution of the material. The Hulk, again, is a good example. The Hulk portrayed the military in a way that made sense and served the story with none of the flag waving, over-the-top patriotic excesses plaguing these films. Jingoistic subtext is all over this film- the Transformers dismantling Iran's Nuclear weapons program, for example. Optimus giving a speech about how the autobots will defend the world no matter how many friends betray them with an American flag waving in the background. It's all very cheesy and obviously meant to appeal to young, simple minded children who don't know any better. That is my qualm (as I'd made clear) with the portrayal of the military in these films. Not that it didn't "make sense" within the context of the story. This kind of ideology can exist in a film passively, using undertones to endorse a certain ideology without being thrown in audience's face.

No, I quite obviously understood. But sadly, it seems while you're busy insulting my intelligence, you forget to read, because I said that just because TDK chose to handle the inclusion of cops one way does not mean everyone else must follow that rule. How would I be saying that TDK should focus on cops because that's the logic Bay used, when my EXACT closing statement was:

just because one movie handles it one way does not mean every other movie should handle it the same

Good god, boy. You have no idea what you've read.

lol. Thanks "boy". My point was not that because TDK portrayed the police force in one way that the military should be treated similarly. My point was that the movie is called "TRANSFORMERS" and they occupy much less of the story than they should. The police in TDK serve their purpose in the to the story in the peripherals and the titular DARK KNIGHT occupies the lions share of the story. Which leads to...

Yup, that's me. Disagreeing with you (and yet, at the same time admitting to faults of these and similar films) makes me not only uncreative (HA! Me, a professional artist and musician, uncreative! - though "writer's block" is not a non-existent issue for me at times) but also a Hollywood yes man. Love your logic.

You can't make one statement saying one thing and then make another, diametrically opposing it and not be a hypocrite. I called you uncreative because your justification for why the military was portrayed so heavily in the movie is essentially because the writer and director chose to create the story that way.

A) it would be logical for the military to get involved;
B) the Transformers team up with the military and
C) several characters are in the military
D) its a movie series where an alien WAR COMES TO EARTH

and I answered with this:

So you argument for why the military is so heavily involved in these films, is because:

A. The writer and Bay chose to write/portray them heavily into the film.
B. The writer and Bay chose to have the Transformers team up with the military.
C.The writer and Bay chose to make several characters from the military.
D. So because there are giant robots on earth, the movie must focus excessively on the military fighting them. Not focus mainly on the two warring factions of Transformers (title characters).

You may very well be a creative artist or whatever, but by validating the existence of something being in a film simply because it was written that way is not a very creative solution.

It makes it very similar to the hundreds of other films focusing on the military fighting aliens. Would you agree that Focusing on the Transformers themselves would be more appealing? As one poster mentioned, the Transformers could have been an epic steam-punk-esque, space-adventure with the Robots themselves at the core of the story. To make that interesting, suspenseful and funny, while still making us care for the characters (which these films did NOT do IMO), now THAT would be a magnificently creative feat to pull off.